Skip to main content
8:00 pm
every word i say for or against me. it's made our life easier and also changed our economy. you go to grocery store today and find machines doing the jobs people once did. one person because of automation can do the work by people used to do. it's the world around us that is changed and had an impact on our people. on our hard-working people, many of seeing jobs wiped out. just been doing 20 years gone overnight. ..
8:01 pm
to protect the people who are struggling and they don't want want to take in want to take it away from anybody. the vast majority of americans in the hard-working middle class don't want to take away from people that have made. they do want to hurt the people that are trying. they wonder who is fighting for them. who's fighting for the hard-working everyday people who do things right and do not complain that have built this nation? and conservative believers in limited government and free enterprise that that is our challenge in their and the opportunity. to be there for them and by the way i can think of a better call because our hard-working middle-class is one of the things that makes america different and special to the rest of the world. every country in the world --
8:02 pm
though unfortunately every country in the world has poor people but few have the fiber and widespread middle-class that america does, widespread middle-class that everyone we have said should have been a goal opportunity to be part of the middle-class. it sets us apart from the world. and in that light you hear all this debate about inviting a mouth among people that believe in limited government. that's really a foolish notion. people who disagreed on all sorts of things in our world work together on things they do agree on. and there has to be a home and a movement in america for people to believe in limited government constitutional principles in the free enterprise system and that should be us. [applause] in order to work together with the people that you disagree with there has to be mutual respect. that means i respect people that disagree with me on certain things but they have to respect me too.
8:03 pm
just because i believe the station have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot. [applause] just because we believe that life, all human life is worthy of protection on every stage of its development does not make you a chauvinist. [applause] in fact, the people who are actually in american politics are the people that love to preach about the certainty of science with regard to our climate but ignore the absolute fact that science has proven that life begins at conception. [applause] and so, our challenge is to create an agenda applying our principles. our principles still work, applying our time-tested principles to the challenges of today and what does an agenda
8:04 pm
like that look like? i think government has three things that can do to help. a limited government has three things that can do to help. the first to to make america the best place in the world for middle-class jobs. that is why we need for example to engage in the global economy through fair trade. we also need to engage in a world and we are living in a global economy america can't solve every war. we can't be involved in every conflict that we also can be retreating from the world and so that balance is critically important for us to strike because we live in the global economy. beyond that we need to have her growth energy policies including oil and natural gas. [applause] our regulations, regulations have to be the product of the cost-benecost-bene fit analysis. if you go to some of these other countries the government's trying to help the business community. in america business feels like the government is an impedimenimpedimen t their competitor, their enemy. that has to stop.
8:05 pm
[applause] our monetary policy cannot be used to inflate things and distort our economy. the list goes on and on. we need to have a progrowth tax structure not one is designed to take from some and give to others. and last but not least we believe in solving our debt problem not out of ideological reasons but is hurting job creation. jobs are not being created in america. they are jobs that are not being created in this country because we have a 16.5 chilean dollar debt and its only scheduled to get bigger. that problem has to be solved and the only real approach to solving it is a combinaticombinati on of fiscal discipline and rapid economic growth. there is no tax increase in the world that will solve our long-term debt rovlin. [applause] the second thing our government can help us do is help ourselves by requiring the skills of a 20% and that is why i think every parent in america should have
8:06 pm
the opportunity to send their children to the school of their choice. [applause] by the way we should encourage career in education. not everyone has to go to a four-year liberal arts college. [applause] we still need carpenters. recently plumbers. why are we still graduating kid with not just a high school diploma but an industry certification and a career. [applause] last but not least because i'm running out of time last but not least do not underestimate and i know -- the impact of the breakdown of the american family is happening on our people and our future. [applause] we have to talk about it for sure. governments role in solving this is limited but openly we should recognize we do have obligations to each other and in addition to
8:07 pm
individual rights and individual responsibilities to each other but not their government. through community for our churches and neighborhoods as parents neighbors and friends. those are the best ways in which he we can survive americans through voluntary organizations for every single day americans from all walks of life are literally changing the world would one day one day when life one neighbor at a time. last but not least the cost of living is real and that's why we need health care reform. but not health care reform that index the federal federal government to takeover the world trying to solve the health care industry but that empowers americans so they can buy health insurance from any company in america that's willing to sell it to them. [applause] my last point, my last point on the cost of living. you should be very concerned about this. it's a mess big bowl turn america. i know know something about it. i graduate with over $100,000 in student loans and i paid off last year with the proceeds of my book available on amazon for
8:08 pm
$12.99. it's a shameless plug. anyway and let me tell you who that really hurt. do you know of that really hurts it hurts the middle class because many of their parents make too much to qualify for grants so they have to rely on student loans and we have to start solving that problem. they're all kind of innovative ideas through self-directed learning whether it's empowering people with more information so they know how much they can expect to make if they graduate with a certain degree and how much they can expect to owe. whatever it may be we have to tackle this issue. it's a major problem for future and a major problem for the american middle class. my time is up so let me close. a couple of things. if you look at our government you have a right to be pessimistic. here's the good news, america has never been our government. america has never been our politician. america has always been our people. with all the bad news out there you can still find a tremendous
8:09 pm
promise of tomorrow and the everyday stories of our people. let me tell you one story. there's this couple that i know on my sons -- seven years old. this is a couple, they are married. she works as a receptionist at a dental office, medical office and helos boxes from trucks at a warehouse. i don't have to tell you they are struggling. they live in a small apartment and they share one card. they are not freeloaders. they are not liberals. [laughter] they are just everyday people who want what everybody else wants. they want a better life. they want a better life for themselves and even better life for their children. and they are desperate. sometimes when you're like that no matter how much you are susceptible to this argument that maybe government is the only thing that can help and
8:10 pm
that is what we have to come in. and explained that is not true. the first thing they really need is an economy, a fast and vibrant economy that's creating the middle-class jobs that will allow them to get themselvethemselve s to that better future. the next thing they need is the skills for those job. there are 3 million jobs available in america that are not failed because too many people don't have the skills for those jobs. they need skills for those new job so instead of being a receptionist she can be an ultrasound tech. instead of loading boxes from a truck he can be fixing those trucks. and the third thing they need is a place where the cost of living is affordable for their increased paycheck is not eaten away. let me tell you what the stakes are because the stakes are not just american. the stakes are bigger than that. [applause] never in the history of the world has water been so popular. [applause]
8:11 pm
i will close by telling you what i think is at stake. not just amec in political debate. yesterday with the transition of the government china they have a new leader in this new leader loves to go around giving speeches where he refers to something called the china dream. you may say what is the china dream? let me tell you what the china dream is. the china dream is a book that was written by a think a colonel a chinese army colonel. china's goal should be to surpass the united states as the world's preeminent military and economic power. that is what the china dream is. in fact in in the forward of it he writes another general rights the 21st century should you raced to see who can become the champion country to lead the world. so while we are here bickering in in this country in arguing about whether we should spend more for what governments role should be there is a nation trying to supplant us is the leading power of the world. and you may think, why does that
8:12 pm
matter? some people as they let someone else take the lead for a while. we are tired of solving the worlds problems and believe me i understand. i do. it's frustrating but let me explain something. let me explain what the chinese government is. there is no access to the internet. holding prisoners without any right to records. the chinese government restrict the ability of people and if you escape china they put pressure on the government or for they can return the chinese government has coerced the implementation which means in some cases they are forcing a version -- abortion and sterilization. the chinese government uses force labor and this is what they do to their own people. we want that to be the leading country in the world? we want that to be the leading voice on the planet? that the stakes.
8:13 pm
this is not just about national -- the truth of the matter is don't take this for granted. what we have here is different and special and historic. in the vast history of the world and of mankind almost everyone that has ever been born is poor and disadvantaged with no ability to get ahead. what is made the difference is that here people of have a real chance to get a better life for matter how they started out. and do not asterisk -- underestimate what that is meant to the the world. it's in a sentence began we'll tell you with the criticism on the left is going to be. number one, he drank too much water. [applause] number two that he didn't offer any new ideas. we don't need a new idea. there's an idea and the ideas called america and it still works. [applause] [applause]
8:14 pm
[applause] do you want proof that it still works? do you want proof still works? let go around the world today. who are they copping? they are not copying the former soviet union. they are not even copying china. they are copying us with every step towards free enterprise. millions of people are over the world are emerging from poverty, millions of people are emerging from generational poverty because they were inspired by the american idea. they may claim to hate us but they sure would like to be us. [applause] and the question is in the world that we will leave our children what will be the dominant country in the world? will be the last shining example for the world? a country like the one i just described to you in china or in other places are a country like ours?
8:15 pm
that is what is at stake and i believe, i know we will make the right choice because i believe in my heart what i have always believed. but if we give our people the opportunity at free enterprise and upward mobility they will do what they have always done. they will build and sustain a vibrant middle class. if we give our children the skills they need for the 21st century they will do what americans have always done. they will change the world for the better. if we do what we are supposed to do we will always be who we are destined to be ,-com,-com ma the single greatest nation in the history of the world. thank you very much. thank you. [applause] [applause] [applause]
8:16 pm
>> so, who here stands with rand [applause] i thought so. i must say young americans foundation we are happy to headline our colors conference last summer and i know we electrified americans with the recent filibuster. the honorable rand paul the u.s. senator for kentucky. elected in 2010 is proven to be an outspoken champion for constitutional liberties and fiscal responsibility and is obviously a warrior in government overreach. without further ado, please welcome rand paul. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. [applause]
8:17 pm
>> i was told i get 10 measly minutes. but just in case i've bought brought 13 hours worth. a message for the president, a message that is loud and clear, a message that doesn't mince words. [laughter] that is not exactly what i was thinking. however i think he may have distilled my 13 hour speech into three words. the message for the president is that no one person gets to decide the law. no one person gets to decide your guilt or innocence. my question, my question to the
8:18 pm
president was about more than just killing americans on american soil. my question was about whether presidential power has limits. [applause] lincoln put it well when he wrote, nearly all men can stand adversity but if you want to test a man, give him power. president obama who seemed once upon a time to respect civil liberties has become the president who signed a law allowing for indefinite detention of an american citizen. indeed a law that allows an american citizen to be sent to guantánamo bay without a trial. president obama defends the signing of this bill by stating that he is no intention of detaining an american citizen
8:19 pm
without a trial. likewise he defended possible target -- targeted drone strikes on americans by indicating he had no intention of doing so. my 13 hour filibuster was a message to the president. good intentions are not enough. [applause] the presidential i will protect to serve and defend the constitution. it doesn't say well, i intend to when it's convenient. mr. president, good intentions are not enough. we want to know ,-com,-com ma will you or want are want you defend the constitution and? eisenhower wrote, how far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without? if we destroy our enemies but
8:20 pm
lose what defines our freedom and process, have we really one? if we allow one man to charge americans as enemy combatants and to definitely detain or drone them then what exactly is it that our brave young men and women are fighting for? [applause] there can be no liberty a few combined the executive and the legislative branches. likewise there can be no justice if you combined the executive and the judicial branch. we separated a rest from accusation and trial and verdict for a reason. when lewis carol's -- sentence first, verdict afterwards.
8:21 pm
the reader's response is supposed to be, but that would be absurd. in our country the police can arrest but only your peers can convict. we price our bill of rights like no other country. our bill of rights is what defines us. it's what makes us exceptional. [applause] to those who would dismiss this debate as frivolous, i say tell that to the heroic young men and women who sacrificed their limbs and lives, tell that to the 6000 parents of kids who died as american soldiers in iraq and afghanistan. tell them the bill of rights is no big deal. [applause]
8:22 pm
tell it to sergeant j.d. williams who is one of biden my neighbors. he lives in auburn kentucky a few miles from me. he sacrificed himself to save his fellow's soldiers. tell him his sacrifice was great but that we had to suspend the bill of rights. i don't think so. [applause] the filibuster was about drones but also about much more. do we have the bill of rights? do we have a constitution will be defended? [applause] in his farewell speech in 1989, reagan said as government expands, liberty contracts. he was right. government cannot give us our liberty.
8:23 pm
our rights come from our creator but as government grows, liberty becomes marginalized. the collective takes precedent over the individual. freedom shrinks. and our government today is larger than it has ever been in our history. everything that america has beed to be is now threatened by the notion that you can have something for nothing, that you can have your cake and cake and eat it too and you can spend a trillion dollars every year that you don't have. the president seems to think that we can keep adding to his 15 trillion-dollar debt. the president seems to think our country can continue to borrow $50,000 the second. the president believes we just need to squeeze more money out of those who are working. he has got it exact backwards. [applause]
8:24 pm
i am here to tell you that what we need to do is keep more money in the pockets of those who earn it. [applause] look at how ridiculous washington politicians have behaved over the sequestered. the president says woe is me, over a trillion dollars sequester that he endorsed and he signed into law. some republicans joined him. but the sequester didn't cut spending. it just slows the rate of growth of government. even with the sequester, the federal government will grow over $7 trillion over the next decade. only in washington can a 7 trillion-dollar increase in spending be called a -- [inaudible] [applause]
8:25 pm
now the president is trying to step up. he's trying to do his fair share. after the sequester was announced, he said he is going to stop a white house tours for schoolchildren. they had to do this because these cuts were imposed by the sequester. but meanwhile, within a few days the president signed an extra $250 million to egypt. the you know, the countries where it they chanted death to america he funded $250 million to reward them. a country whose president recently stood by his spiritual leader who called for death to israel. i say no more countries that are earned our flag. [applause]
8:26 pm
[applause] but i do want to help the president. i have a few suggestions for him. i'm sorry i couldn't have lunch with him today. maybe he will be able to see this later on on c-span. so when i asked the president if he wants to let the schoolchildren back in the white house, what about the $3 million we spend studying monkeys? does it take $3 million to discover that monkeys like humans act crazy on mass? [applause] mr. president what about the $300,000 for a robotic squirrel? they wanted to study a squirrel
8:27 pm
that does not wag its tail whether it would be bitten by a rattlesnake. the only problem, they couldn't find a real squirrel to volunteer not to wag its tail. but i can tell you the bottom line for the 300,000-dollar question, a rattlesnake will buy think you know what out of a squirrel not wagging its tail. mr. president maybe we could cut the robotic squirrel before he went to the white house tours. for any of you college students looking for jobs uncle sam's got a job for you. it pays $5000, all expenses paid the studies in hawaii but the requirements are onerous. only if you can qualify. you have to like food. the studies to develop a menu for when we colonize mars. i am not making this up.
8:28 pm
guess what a bunch of college students came up with for the menu? pizza. [applause] you could cut one of these programs in return for letting the children come to the white house. this government completely out of control. we desperately needed new course and new leadership. [applause] the path forward to the republican party is rooted in the respect for the constitution and the respect for the individual. part of that respect is allowing americans to exercise one of their most basic rights, right to bear arms. [applause]
8:29 pm
but you can't protect the second amendment if you don't protect the fourth amendment. if we are not secure in our homes, if we are not secure in arab persons in our papers can we really believe that the right to bear arms will be secure? [applause] we need to jealously guard all of our liberties. [applause] the facebook generation can detect falseness and hypocrisy a mile away. i know it. i have kids. they are are the core though of the lethe alone coalition. they tout social security will be there for them and they worry about jobs, money and rent and student loans. they want leaders that won't feed them a lot of garbage or sell them short.
8:30 pm
they are not afraid of individual liberty. [applause] asked the facebook generation whether we should put a kid in jail for the non-violent crime of drug abuse and you will hear a resounding no. [applause] asked the facebook generation if they want to bail out too big to fail banks with their tax dollars and you will hear a hell no. [applause] there is nothing conservative about bailing out wall street. likewise, there is nothing progressive about billion dollar loans to millionaires to build solar panels. [applause] the republican party has to change by going forward to the
8:31 pm
classical and timeless ideas enshrined in our constitution where we understand that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. then we will become the dominant national party again. it's time for us to revive reagan's law, for liberty to expand government must shrink. [applause] for the economy to grow government must get out of the way. this month i will propose a five-year balanced budget. my budget will eliminate the department of education. [applause] and defaults empowering money
8:32 pm
back to the states where they belong. [applause] my five-year budget will create millions of jobs like letting the corporate -- cutting the corporate income tax in half. [applause] by creating a flat personal income tax of 17%. [applause] and cutting the regulations that are strangling american business. [applause] the only stimulus ever proven to work is leaving more money in the hands of those who have earned it. [applause] the constitution must be our guide for conservatives to wind nationally. we must stand for something. we must stand on principle.
8:33 pm
we must stand for something so powerful and so popular that it brings together people from the left and the right and the middle. we need a republican party that shows up on the south side of chicago and shout to the top of our lungs, we we are the party f jobs and opportunity. the gop is the ticket to the middle class. [applause] the gop of old has grown stale and moss covered. [applause] i don't think we need to name any names, do we? our party is encumbered by an inconsistent approach to freedom the new gop will need to embrace
8:34 pm
liberty in both the economic and the personal sphere. [applause] if we are going to have a republican party that can't wind, libertine needs to be the backbone of the gop. [applause] we must have a message. our vision must be brought in that vision must be based on freedom. there are millions of americans young and old, native and immigrant, black white and brown who seek to live free, to practice their religion, to choose where their kids go to school. free to choose their own health care, free to keep the fruits of their labor and free to live without guns -- government constantly being on their back. i will stand for them. [applause] i will stand for you.
8:35 pm
i will stand for our prosperity and our freedom and i ask everyone who values liberty to stand with me. [applause] [applause] >> cpac annual meeting also looked at middle east policy and the terrorist attacks that killed four americans in gandhi in libya. this hour-long forum began with comments by former congressman ernest istook. >> interesting to me when bill clinton was president of the united states, there were so many people who made excuses and said well of course the president was lying. after all it was only about sex and everybody lies about that. and how many times have you had anything to oppose federal spending or campaign finance?
8:36 pm
you can't get a straight answer. for example, what is the minimum cost to be in the organizing for america meetings with president obama? is there a discount available for that $500,000? so we are told that politicians are expected not to be truthful when it comes to money. however, i believe benghazi has struck a resonant chord with people across the country is because in this case the concern is the president and his people were lying about matters of life and death and that is such a different category from anything else. and the shame of benghazi is not only the president, but it's with the media itself and what they did and they failed to do to follow up with it. our panelists met to explore --
8:37 pm
i don't think that we are able to give you a formal report. if you read through the findings of the state department report, you might find just as many questions unanswered as answered and we still don't know how many people were injured. are they still at walter reid medical center in washington d.c.? have they been released to? we can't get a straight answer about that. now if you would have been one of the 12 u.s. senators who had a chance to dine with president obama this past week, what might've been one of your questions to him? what happened that night? it has been six months and we still have mysteries and we are told well the fbi is investigating things. if you look at the orders that
8:38 pm
were given to the mpi about what they are supposed to be investigating it's curious to me because the state department investigator but went on at the state department and the fbi was tasked to tell us what went on overseas, but nobody has been asked to investigate what went on at the white house that night it's a glaring omission. who wants to know? do you want to no? [applause] why do you want to no? what difference does it make? and when we get answers like that, nothing you ask has any importance. what difference does it make? and the president, his answer this week saying well i don't want to balance the budget just for the sake of it. i don't want to have to tell the truth to the american people
8:39 pm
just for the sake of being open and honest. he has higher purposes to serve. and benghazi i suppose the fact of the higher purpose was to make sure you you've could go to vegas the next day and raise funds there. so, benghazi is about the shame of the media and failing to answer these questions. not even noticing that the things the president commissioned as investigations omitted the white house itself. neither the state department or the fbi stands with that. if and when the fbi finishes their work maybe somebody will notice they didn't do anything about what happened in the white house. but by then the whole philosophy of the obama administration is that it's going to be too late.
8:40 pm
so now is the opportunity that we are going to be hearing from our panelists. and each of us will present a little bit of a different perspective on the panel. about what happened that night and then i will have some q&a interaction with it and we will see even if we cannot -- even if we cannot answer the questions for you, perhaps we can help people to understand what are the right questions so that someday whether it be a presidential candidate or a cnn moderator, or senators having dinner with the president, maybe somebody can come up with the right questions to ask about benghazi and then hope and pray that someday we will get the proper answers. let me turn to time over to our panel is to remarks. roger. >> thank you very much congressman.
8:41 pm
hold your applause. thank you very much. somebody paying attention. let me begin by making a very stark appraisal of what we learned from and ghazi. let me just ask you to remember the famous commercials during the 2008 campaign about the 3:00 a.m. phonecall. the primary lesson from benghazi is ladies and gentlemen that 3:00 a.m. phonecall went to voicemail. and it's a manifestation of the fact that we have a president who takes responsibility for only one thing as far as i can tell which is improving his golf score. he does that because it's something that only he can do, right? when you are president of the united states there are a lot of things that only you can do. benghazi is actually two separate scandals, staggering
8:42 pm
scandals. one of the events of that terrible night was how was handled and the others the cover-up. the folks in this room probably understand most better than most americans because they pay attention and are critical about the things that our government does. let's just sort of review those things. and take a quick look at them. i have about five minutes here. there was the actual attack in the response which showed gross mismanagement, a colossal blunder along the way when that embassy was attacked on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. i hated the experience as the secretary of state when port-au-prince in haiti was the third most dangerous post after baghdad and kabul. we had problems and we were worried about american systems being attacked or that an ambassador ruse responding asking for security precautions to be taken and we took them. let me tell you something that is interesting. i worked for two secretaries of
8:43 pm
state colin powell and condoleezza rice and both of them independently and spontaneously asked me about security at the embassy in port-au-prince and thank god i had a good answer. we did our jobs and we were secure. if something had happened i could assure you that the last thing i would have told either one of them was what difference would it make because if i had said that that would have been the last thing i would have said. why were we ready for benghazi? the president said all qaeda was on the run. instead they were coming over the walls. the benghazi was bloody evidence of a resurgent al qaeda murder and the u.s. ambassador and literally raising its flag over u.s. territory not only in benghazi but the capital and in the worst of all that night dozens of americans left to fend for themselves from four to seven hours without any help
8:44 pm
coming. secretary panetta testified very late many months after this process and said you know we can't have the american military in harm's way. [laughter] ladies and gentlemen if there are americans facing harm at the hands of a terrorist attack, in harm's way is exactly what the american military needs to be -- where it wants to be. [applause] quite frankly it is shameless that some irresponsible anonymous person at camp david ordered to stand down rather than stage a rescue and doesn't have the guts to come forward to take responsibility for that fateful decision. the second part of this "scandal is the cover-up itself. we know this. even before they first blamed that infamous video for this incident in benghazi they knew that was not true. but they served up that cover story repeatedly, shamelessly and in the case of art president
8:45 pm
indignantly for months thereafter. maybe it was because they were totally uninformed as to what was going on. let me emphasize another sobering lesson from benghazi. and you won't know this. american journalism as we know it before for our rock star president, american journalism is dead. [applause] rather than raise the question, the tough questions, they have behaved like hockey goalies in front of barack obama's head sending off those questions. we have a government that lies to us with impunity and it makes a very big difference in a very dangerous world. it's sometimes you only thing that stands between where we are and mayhem, chaos and grade security threats. what does our world look like
8:46 pm
today? very briefly. the best thing can say about the middle east peace process is that there is less peace and no process. the president will be visiting israel for the first time since he's been in office arriving with no ideas for jump-starting that process and that's the least of our problems. quite frank if he had ideas they would probably be bad ones. iran is creeping towards an a-bomb and new sanctions are fighting a bit over objections of the administration. al qaeda is resurgent spreading throughout the middle east and africa and that iran and afghanistan with the american people there has been so much blood and treasure struggling to stand on their own. that is precisely where we are leaving them, on their own. the radical muslim brotherhood is at the helm and the slaughter is going on in syria with 60,000 dead and hundreds of thousands of refugees. what is their our message to terrorists whom we have captured? seven deadly words, you have the
8:47 pm
right to remain silent. now more than ever we need a president who is engaged will make tough decisions and can stand behind them. is there anyone who looks at benghazi and thinks we have such a president today? thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon cpac. it's a privilege to be with you here today and to be on this channel and to follow senator rand paul. and in the spirit of debate i want to begin my remarks on benghazi with a small criticism of senator paul's stance on foreign policy. not a mccain graham criticism but a constructive one i hope. i love the guy and his filibuster was brilliant.
8:48 pm
long overdue. but while he was right on the constitutconstitut ion, he was wrong on the law of war, especially the distinction between a combatant and a noncombatant cannot follow his definition as it now stands. he may change it. or we will not deserve to be taken seriously on foreign policy. let's start in benghazi. the attack on the u.s. consulate in september was the worst national security failure since the original 9/11 teary at it truly deserves the label scandal for three reasons. one, because president barack obama and his administration lied about the attack. two, because the media aided in the cover-up and three, because the president did nothing to rescue those at the consulate including ambassador chris stevens. but benghazi was not just a national security failure. it was also a constitutconstitut
8:49 pm
ional failure. the president has a constitutional duty to act as commander-in-chief and he failed to do so. he did not as he once claims in a tv interview with a reporter in denver, one of the few reporters that got past the hockey goalie, he did not issue those three directives that he claimed when he knew what was going on in benghazi. nor did he communicate with his cabinet throughout the evening after learning of the attacks and we now know that the cabinet members did not talk to each other either. president obama's dereliction of duty, because that is what it was, in benghazi reinforce the global perception of growing american weakness. al qaeda has lost its leader but it has regained its momentum. we have done little to challenge chinese ambitions in the western pacific. we have capitulated russian demands on missile defense in europe and most of all we have
8:50 pm
failed to prevent iran from advancing towards obtaining nuclear weapons. his speech is of course the obama administration continues to insist that all options are on the table including a military option. but iran considers our actions, not president obama's words and what iran seized is a president committing to retreat. in june 2009 iran was surrounded east and west by u.s.-led troopn afghanistan and over 130,000 in iraq. that light we encouraged iranians to rise up against third government after the stolen elections that summer. we could've helped the green revolution. we could have declared the government of iran it legitimate. it needs to be a military response. we could have done something diplomatic which president obama in his new secretary of defense are very fond of but we didn't.
8:51 pm
had we intervened in that small way we could have helped the iranians overturn their government and its nuclear program and its support for terrorism worldwide, without firing a shot. but we allowed the regime time to regroup and five years later, by 2014, by next year iran will face no troops in iraq, 12,000 at most in afghanistan and one less u.s. navy carrier in the persian gulf. now that looks like retreat from their perspective. iran remains the strategic challenge in the region today. it is formed alliances with diverse tear groups including al qaeda and it has connections now with muslim brotherhobrotherho od governments. it bridges the sunni-shia divide just like common enemies, the u.s. and israel. yet the regime remains weak. and this is key. because it is hated by its own
8:52 pm
people. we can remove iran and the threats if we commit to a policy of regime change by peaceful transition if possible and that military removal if necessary. regime change is rarely the right policy, rarely but it is the right policy and iran and the irony is that iran is one of the few places in in the middle east where the obama administration refused to support a popular uprising. but the regime can be toppled and must be before it ran harms our allies in that region or attacks the u.s. homeland in some way. we suspect and i've rand believes that president obama lacks the will to confront iran much less change it but do we conservatives ourselves have the will to do so? question is become even more acute i would argue and senator paul's filibuster last week. the filibuster filibuster was a brave interrupt gesture of obsession and approved his one liter, a tea party leader, was
8:53 pm
prepared to stand up for the constitution and for the principles of individual liberty proceeds governmengovernmen t power. senator paul was wrong about one thing. it is not as easy to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants as he suggested. a foreign -- on foreign soil does not stop being a jurist simply because he or she is far from the battlefield. if we accept the hypothetical example that he used that a terrorist at a café is never a legitimate target and we cannot protect ourselves from terrorists. in our zeal to roll back government power we will place their liberty in danger. similarly, in embracing the sequester we cannot accept the defense budget that may prove more costly over time by putting our security at risk. we must replace those cuts with other cuts. [applause] we cannot be serious about protecting individual liberty from government if we are not
8:54 pm
also serious about protectinprotectin g liberty from all enemies foreign and domestic trade the reason we have our constitution and not the articles of confederation is a former system of government could not protect the nation or pay its debt. as we confront today's debt which is a national security risk we must not make defense which is the first priority government the first target for cuts. the benghazi attack happened because the president sacrificed military readiness for ideology and domestic politics. we must learn from that mistake. our constitution calls for limited government and it also calls for a government that can defend the nation. as we pair that with the expanse of government that came along with the war on terror after 9/11 we must see that war through the eerie and ensure that our military is ready for the next challenge. alexis de tocqueville warned as
8:55 pm
quote note to track the poor can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country and that is the point senator paul is making. or maybe just centralize power in the distinction of -- destruction of liberty over time but tocqueville also warns quote when a democratic people engage in war after a long piece bathing courage -- it incurs much more risk of defeat than any other nation. ben ghazi reminds us we cannot defend liberty if we did not take the fight to our enemies. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. it's good to be here. i've been in investigative journalist my whole life, for 25 years which is popular and a family of irish cops but it gives me an opportunity to pick a lens of the things that go on washington and elsewhere in the country and to challenge power and to try to get the truth out
8:56 pm
to american public that yearns for and the government that often does not want to provide it. in the course of this career i've never been at a point in time where i've seen a weaker media and i think the congressman said it just right the benghazi of course is a failure of diplomatic diplomacy and security truthfulness but it's also a failure of the american media. we do not today ask enough of the hard questions and why is that? what haswhat has happened to ust made us basically a bad equivalent of a silence of the lambs? the economy has taken a lot from the news media. there has been this great exodus of the brain trust reporters that we had 30 fours -- 30 or 40 years of experience in military matters when you cover the conflict issues like benghazi. they have walked out the door. there've also traded a culture that the news of the moment is so important. we must run out and get the topline but no one dares bite
8:57 pm
the hand that feeds them and therefore so much of the media today has become beholden to the people who hand out the daily news. if you are afraid to buck that trend you're never going to get to the bottom of the stories like benghazi. this deeply troubles me. the other day i was writing a story and i'm not going to be favorable to the justice department. i was talking to one of the people there and i told him that there was evidence that the yet be a director and attorney general had used a corporate learjet and using it instead for their own personal travel. you can imagine the first few words out of the spokesperson smiled. i will not utter them here because it won't be appropriate for a family audience. a spokesperson actually use these words. if you go with that i will destroy you. i will turn your colleagues against you and i will make sure you are embarrassed. obviously didn't work because i'm here today but more importantly it was an idle
8:58 pm
threat. [applause] we live in a for society where we stop reporters exercising the first amendment which means going against the grain and we are for and what our founding fathers -- i just want to share for a couple of minutes what we have done. last summer i was really concerned about this trend so i made two decisions. one was to go back home to one of my favorite places at the washington times and i went back home to the times to be cheap digital officer to help build a business model that was drink in one of the greatest newspapers in the nation's capital. i started take my own personal money and a couple of colleagues with me and we put our money together and started own web site called the washington guardian. we are not we are not interested in the -- we are interested in getting the stories that other people aren't telling. we started over labor day weekend and lo and behold 10 or 11 days later became the beginning of benghazi. i was sitting on the plane
8:59 pm
overseas for a trip and i saw these reports. i quickly looked and so i wonder where diplomatic security is. we did a story saying for the last five years the state department hadn't been meeting its security for embassies around the country. i jumped on the plane and when i got to europe i opened up "the new york times" and the "washington post" and several other media outlets and their story was the state department said it did everything it could to fortify the enemy. not really. just read the document. that wasn't true. by that time the storyline has emerged that this was a spontaneous attack from a crowd that had gotten angry about islamic video. i sat there and said to preach the borders? is just not possible. within 40 hours the washington guardian had a story that said no it was al qaeda only extremists and some form of planning that were there to carry out the attack and became
9:00 pm
in two waves and it has absolutely nothing to do with the video that had been making its way on the internet. what did the rest of the media report in the next few days? no, it was the video. the u.n. ambassador went on television and came up with this story. ..
9:01 pm
a few weeks ago we decided we want to go find out what are able get a copy of what was in the president's daily briefing two days after benghazi. what did it say? the president was told two days after benghazi and three days before susan rice went on television that factor is al qaeda unrelated to the video and a semi-organized attack carried out by extremists. how can it be the media does not pick up those lines until the american people the truth is we've come to expect it? what can you do to change this? ensured that it fans of the media to start with, but there is a bright spot and if i could disagree with the advisory little bit, are probably on life support, but not totally dead in the journalism world yet. ray bourge another new places are cropping up. the washington guardian are coming back in those places give us the best opportunity to get the truth that god and i start
9:02 pm
questions that used to be asked why sam donaldson of reagan days. we need people that are worried about the next moment, what we are going to tweet in five minutes, but what the truth needs to be. if you see those places get behind them, support them. if your children thinking journalism is the last days ago, encouraged that could be an honorable profession. you have a place where you put your money. if you read and subscribe to publications, you have the way to go with your pocketbook come over you advertise and subscribe. there's an opportunity to begin to send a message to my profession that it's time to clean up our act and reinvest in expertise to get the american people get the truth. i promise you next year we'll have a slightly better story to tell and not another benghazi.
9:03 pm
thank you for your time. i look forward to the q&a. [applause] >> i want to give our panelists an opportunity to discuss some important aspects of elaborate on something. and i want you to listen closely to this quotation i'm about to redo from president obama. it's from his speech given in cairo june 4th 2009. i want to panelists to address, it is benghazi a symptom of a president who is soft on militant islam? this is the statement that the president gave in cairo. quote, i consider it part of my responsibility as president of the united states to fight against negative stereotypes of islam wherever they appear.
9:04 pm
read that quote once more. i consider it part of my responsibility as president of the united states to fight against negative stereotypes of islam were for the year. did that play into what we saw with the tragedy of benghazi? gentleman. >> all started because in the early days i know what the administration was telling me as i was trying to report those early stories. two storylines resonate in my brain and that is we need to be sent today to the libyan government. it's always the right at the local government to investigate a crime. i kept thinking it's an act of war when you attack her and to a sort of sensitivity has dominated a lot of discussion about you guys in earlier things in it. going back to my own profession, why don't we ask of the worst american interest in letting
9:05 pm
libyans take the lead on the investigation? y was in our military called immediately? i could've flown from washington d.c. to listen to do because the quicker than this on the ground. how can that be when lebanon was stronger in iraq academic clinton years. 20 hours, two attacks before we got there. the sensitivity of wanting too much credence to the region with the arab spring, being more concerned about that is a dominant theme in everything i talk about. is it right or wrong? as a journalist or you're the same every day. >> jolt. >> it is not objectionable for the president to defend most climate because there are millions of muslims who are american it is an, but that's not what he said he said islam is a religion or civilization or what have you. the connection to benghazi is tied to the story that was told
9:06 pm
and reiterated in the media about the video, with the president went to the united nations and give a speech after benghazi talking about those who defame islam and i forget his exact remarks, but he was going after those who defame islam. that's not why we elected him. that's not his role. i think the movie story is interesting because what the president was doing was actually not very subtle. what the president was doing on the white house and everybody who bought into this idea there was this movie that caused all the trouble, who made the movie? it was someone in america. we do know the identity at the time, but it is the christian filmmaker. this is a rehash of the quran burning controversy of a few years before, where pastor was going to burn the quran and our
9:07 pm
generals and politicians felt they had to apologize to the rest of the world for this unfettered exercise of the first amendment of the constitution. i'm not saying it's a great idea, but the first amendment doesn't exist to protect speech you like. so they reiterated this. [applause] what the president was saying to them is a world in benghazi was don't blame my industry shame. leave these crazy bitter cleaners in america who do these things that offend the rest of the world. what he was basically saying is that people in this room are the problem. the people who defend their faith. the people who defend their liberties and don't give again about the rest of the world are the problem. himself and love america. you don't have to accept american ideals and you don't have to accept the american people. it was a rehash the narrative that the administration was a
9:08 pm
part of that media, mainstream media reiterated in hollywood has reinforced. as they battled the administration is waging against the bitter cleaners who like the second amendment, use the first man and, whether it's religion or speech. back to me was a disgrace. before we knew there was stats and benghazi, we knew there were people scaling the walls of the embassy in cairo in the u.s. embassy in cairo twitter feed was treating apologies and talking about how we shouldn't be sensitive to the religious feelings of others. their first response is to dump on the first amendment. and not just the first amendment in general, but those who use it to express the ideas expressed in this room and at conference. that was the disgrace that really set the stage for everything else that followed. [applause] let me just give you the quote
9:09 pm
from the united nations speech to which joel pollack referred. president obama said this fear the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam. but to be credible, those who condemn not slander must also condemn the heat we see in the images of jesus christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed for the holocaust denier. i will just note the effort to provide balance as it were was totally missing in the speech he made in cairo. roger. >> i would say the single biggest event in modern history that has hurt the image of islam with the 9/11 attacks. if you are going to prevent the sort of attacks in the future
9:10 pm
against us another innocent people around the world, we have to do a more effective job of fighting terrorism and niceties prepared to do. the sniper and drawn foreign policies now south terrorists rather than capturing none on most occasions when you can and taking them to guantánamo, not to manhattan, not telling them -- precisely not telling them they have the right to name silent is a better approach and better tactic in this war. i think we all could pay very dearly for this ideological orientation that they have against guantánamo, against tactics that kept us safe for a dozen years. part of the ideology frankly is in the president mind the kind of orientation he had as a young man growing up and growing into adulthood is the sort of third world anticolonial anti-western
9:11 pm
orientation. i think that's at the heart of a lot of this. those attitudes he has make this a less safe world quite frankly. [applause] >> one of the key moments, maybe even a turning point in the presidential race last fall was in the second presidential debate for mitt romney asked the president orszag you haven't called this an act of terrorism. obama said he did. candy crowley interjected ourselves. you remember that moment. i believe mitt romney has totally wrong question. i want to read you from the transcript the question posed by a member of the audience named carrie liedtke, which was never answered by obama and i play from initiative uses time to time to say, mr. president, why
9:12 pm
don't you answer the question from the audience cannot give you some of my time to do so. this is the question from kerry elected. he said this question comes from a brain trust of my friends at global telecoms supplier yesterday. anybody here from mineola aquatics east texas. it just shows the wisdom of everyday people as opposed to political people. we were sitting around talking about libya were reading and became aware of but benghazi libya prior to the attacks that killed four americans. there was the question. who was it that tonight enhanced security and why? now, i would like your comments about what was the right question that should have been asked and how we should make sure president obama and 30
9:13 pm
while on the national stage at a critical moment when the deaths were still fresh. a school in reverse order this time if we can. >> when i said american journalists must enter exceptions in new media and of course fox news and one brave soul at cbs news suzanne reporting on this and probably keeps a resume handy. >> is her first or last kiss and her reporting on cbs. [applause] >> again, in the state department when making those decisions on a regular basis, about the security of our enemies become the first of a homicidal that's a great honor, title of ambassador. if you are out in far corners of the world anger under attack, for your first concern is the people who work with you. the very idea that nobody came
9:14 pm
and they made no eye for to master any sort of rescue attempt that all this scandal is. the very idea that the people who were responsible for security and making decisions about security, these people should be fired. [applause] at a remember which senator was to set it clinton. >> you should have lost your job. i would've fired you. no one took responsibility for that. but the nonaligned if that attack it happened in her, as people would've paid with their jobs and rightfully so in the media would've insisted the problem. a scandal like this happens. i'm talking about the congress asking effect of questions in a
9:15 pm
timely way, people making themselves available, forced to make themselves available to answer questions in some sort of accountability for lives lost. i think it's tragic that the father of slain men said in a their receiving the cast did next to him was hillary clinton and she says were going to get the guy who made that video. what an utter scandal when she put her mind it had nothing to do, building a narrative human being to human being that this mitigated by us really outrageous. [applause] >> i think going back to the second debate, a question that romney about himself to get trapped into was the question of what does the question called
9:16 pm
this attack and as he caught a terrorist attack? that would say somewhat important question because he went to the question of whether obama had lied to the american people. it really was a secondary question and the danger and he led to media hosts the debate. even then secular into these things because cheryl adkison did a great job with cbs but steve kroft, cbs 60 minutes were up on a sad it was an act of terrorism in two days before everyone went to go. they never release until then. it happened in the three weeks late, but the real question as what were you doing when americans are in danger? obama by that time had made a very specific claim, a claim
9:17 pm
that can be questioned. this is the point about journalists not knowing what questions to ask and not have a linux. so entries. obama says specifically id3 directives as soon as i heard that was going on benghazi. one was to make sure personhours save. the second was to start an investigation as to how it happened in the third is to make sure it never happened again. that's very nice. it's all after the fact because none of that addresses the ongoing crisis unless you can argue making personnel safe does. when did he make those direct this? is there any evidence? those are public documents presumably if they were memoranda or executive orders they can be obtained somewhere. evidence must exist. where the journalists asking jay carney every day will state here
9:18 pm
day after day until you give us those directives. where the directives the president issued? there's no answer because they were probably never received. i think it was a huge lie. subsequent testimony has revealed the president called no one, spoke to no one, contacted no one that can be no meetings. the only thing that happened in a sense in a series in january february which we finally got, the only criticism we heard was from general dempsey criticizing hillary clinton can say and i can't imagine she would not known about the security request denied in the cable that came through. other than not, no one else has this question about what was done and that's what the media have to do. it's so easy and they're not doing it. [applause] it's hard for me to handicap a question because in october we didn't have nearly the complete story we have now and i don't believe we have a story now.
9:19 pm
if i could come back in a second night in the white house correspondent, no question i would ask every day when jay carney walked in. the president of the united states promised he would bring to justice the people who committed this attack is now seven months and 12 days. when is he going to do that? that question never gets asked in the briefing room. what about the family sitting back there when 9/11 occurred. you can go back to lebanon, the times and saddam hussein rocha violated the no-fly zone. things happen quickly were still waiting on libyans to give us the explanation i get as a reporter doesn't seem as though it's a satisfying answer. if they hadn't thrown out after the first question, it probably ask mr. president, when you are sitting there and susan rice went on television and you sat with their presidential daily brief and you knew the real story was, did you feel compelled to correct the public
9:20 pm
record? he clearly had to know the story was not ready. i know because the presidential daily briefing told them so. why did he not feel obligated to correct storyline and blame it on intelligence centers who told me the truth 40 hours a happen? is there to questions if they get a chance to go in the white house briefing room i would ask. [applause] >> gentlemen, based upon each of you have done a lot of work taking into the rumors, the fact, the deceit, unanswered questions about benghazi. i want to give you a chance to stake it if you will tell us the degree to which his peers regulation, informed guesses are you really believe this is what happened. i want to ask you, what do you believe is the dirty little secret of benghazi?
9:21 pm
secondly, what do you think president obama did that night that was so pressing? was his favorite movie on tv or what was it that he totally avoided making calls, giving instructions or whatever. glitzier speculations. >> kaman, hudson on here. >> the dirty little secret is her the secret. the president talked about this once and walked away and forgot about it. what he was doing i know the president's every minute of the time is blacked out. it's trapped very, very closely. what he wasn't doing is talking to any member of his national security team. when he knew when to bet that night knowing that the man in november and indignantly said these are my people? i send them out there.
9:22 pm
how dare you say i don't care about the well-being. you have to care more than going to dover air force base in receiving their bodies when you leave then they are defenseless. that's the fact that the president did not do his duty as commander-in-chief. >> joel pollack. >> i think the dirty secret is they understood there were americans at risk and decided they could contain the risk if they did not send further troops in. there's always a risk when you send troops to protect fellow troops or civilians in danger, diplomat said there would be more. but they were worried about was
9:23 pm
there would be many, many casualties. it's happened before many times in afghanistan. we lost navy seals on rescue missions when they were shut down. we've lost lots of civilian police officers, firefighters, similar circumstances. they want to be in harms way. that's what they are trained to and what to do. there's always a risk to lose my mind and i think the president was worried having many casualties would be something he could ignore politically. if you could contain casualties to the few who are they are, there would not be political damage. it seems that a cruel thing to say about the president of the united states. it had an art role about how the president failed in afghanistan and the arguments based on
9:24 pm
journalism and reporting was that every decision made by president obama about afghanistan was mediated through his political advisers. everything that was done was in response to the question, what would republicans do about this? whether the domestics and consequences? he did not act as commander-in-chief
9:25 pm
between those two attacks? good united states have capability for hours to get boots on the ground? if we don't have capability, what are we doing repetitive positioning to have the rescue capability? we need to get to the bottom.
9:26 pm
we have never asked for any assets. could they have made it their? has been important for future protection around the globe. the second question that comes to mind a lot to me as my whiskers even there on september 11? this is the question i get radio silence. nobody wants to answer this question. and makes no sense for the ambassador where they were just denied additional security. it was 11 hours before he died and he described benghazi as an absolute chaotic stew of violence. people getting blown out. i worry they will support us anymore. it didn't make sense. it was a symbolic day for terrorists. it was in the most insecure locations we know at the time and you know this. you don't go in without a good
9:27 pm
reason. someone asked a passerby to see go there? and all the times i've asked it wants to answer the question. i don't know why, but i'm going to keep digging. [applause] >> final question. this attack occurred at a time of when the president said osama bin laden is dead to make that on the ground and wanted to appear militant islam was impotent and yet could not attack we saw the algerian attack at the bp facility. libya, algeria, al qaeda affiliates in north africa. what is this telling us about the love lives sophistication and terrorism and how it remains a threat. got to be brief, but please tell
9:28 pm
us. and that al qaeda is on the run. he is to be one laser we could on and afghanistan. syria, benghazi, latin america. everyone tells me how tight is researching but more surgical in its approach and nothing the media has done a good job of highlighting the road. >> i think one of the reasons the terror group survived his biggest monster ship were tolerant and state. they don't simply exist in a vacuum. herein is one of those states. syria, which is dependent on iran is one of the states in others as well. he doesn't know i said to be militarily. this diplomatic ways to deal with certain states. we've got to stop the people who are accountable to the international community directly for accountable because we gave them foreign aid. the i.t. staff them from providing the acts of terrorism
9:29 pm
and the ideology that is feeling resurgence of al qaeda and other groups across the region. >> what we've learned was in spite of the fact the president made a gutsy decision ever in the history of mankind to kill osama bin laden and made two very good movies about it, al qaeda is still a very pressing threat that we have to remember hezbollah as well. i'm a latin american ethanol mentioned briefly in venezuela. if elsewhere. they partner with darker traffickers and that means that washes i get to a reporter. i have to give credit to people like michael mccall and geoff duncan to focus in the u.s. congress on this thread because that's the one will face next. god for bid john kerry before the senate one of these days is the opportunity to say, what
9:30 pm
difference does admit? >> thank you. roger noriega, john solomon, thank you, everyone for spending time with us. [applause] >> the conservative conference from texas, governor rick perry for 20 minutes. be smart ♪ >> god bless texas. [cheers and applause] thank you for that, patcher. good lead-in. when they told me to come in, i said which we do not need to go? they said turn to the left. i said i don't go left well. it is a big honor to be asked to come and speak and i want to see thank you to those of you that
9:31 pm
allowed me to come and for all the bad things that i say about washington, i never mind coming here. this is a fabulous place to calm. when we got here, i actually was surprised to step up our united flight and see that everybody was still here. from what i've been reading about sequestration, i figure president obama had probably shut the place down and sent everybody home. actually, i would probably be the first good idea he has had. [applause] just kidding. mostly. i come from what a lot of people might seem to think it's a foreign country. we have a balanced budget.
9:32 pm
[cheers and applause] we have a surplus. we are creating more jobs than any other state in the union and we are doing us a part-time legislature that meets 140 days every other year. [cheers and applause] our legislators comment, pass laws and then they go home and live under the laws they just passed. you know, i've got to ask, if we had a part-time congress in washington, would they really get left? what we are getting is a lot of hysteria from a president more concerned about the next election than giving programs like medicaid, medicare, social security for the next
9:33 pm
generation. right now president obama is campaigning full-time it can sequester he created. he has used schoolteachers on border patrol agents, airport security and janitors as part of his portrait of pain. now he's decided to shut down white house tours. apparently now the only folks who get a tour of the white house by those who contribute have a million dollars or more. this president is pastored. be laughable if he hadn't taken it once had to fire. dangerously releasing criminals onto our streets to make a political point. when you have the federally sponsored jailbreak your don't be confused. that's what this is. a federally sponsored jailbreak. it crossed the line from
9:34 pm
politics to spend two politics is a craven farm of cynicism, where everything goes. everything goes in order to win the next election. but here is my concern. if the president can't handle $85 in cuts that he suggested, how could we ever believe he will tackle schilling dollars deficit, unfunded entitlement obligations that amount to trillions of dollars more? are deficit is approximately equal to our gdp. every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed from some bank in a place like china. the resolution to the debt ceiling to buckle led to the first downgrading of american
9:35 pm
credit in the history of this country and we have a president who refuses to put a single plan on paper this seriously addresses the deficit pending, entitlement reform. those are inexplicable. but he's more than willing to do a photo op with first responders in teachers to do cry for spending reductions that amount to less than 1% of the total annual budget. if the president is worried about overtime pay for janitors, i say what about this stagnant wages of millions of american workers? what about the one in seven american% of its stance? what about small businesses and homeowners can get lost because doc frank has frozen credit for americans all across this
9:36 pm
country? what about the more than 20 million americans who can't get full-time work due to the most anemic recovery as the great depression? mr. president, your plans to tax and spend our nation to prosperity will fail aspect pakula really is the economics you fired from john maynard keynes. [applause] let's be clear about what is the crux of the debate in washington. it is whether americans will surrender to the creation of a massive welfare is taking the image of west europe. my quarrel is not with the legitimate role of government, that the unlimited role of government. [applause]
9:37 pm
investments in research and defense capabilities and infrastructure and border security are vital american issues and issues that washington needs to address. we've turned the constitution on its head in the federal government has been dirtied itself into every aspect of american society. instead of allowing state to become laboratories of the on, washington's central planners are co-opting responsibilities reserved to the states and individuals under the tent amendment to the united states constitution. to a federal policy of fiscal coercion is now at the heart of the debates at the medicaid expansion proposed dondero, kerry. unfortunately, some of our
9:38 pm
friends and allies in those men have faltered in the face of federal bravery and mounting pressure from special interest groups. [applause] they tell us to take the money. in the case of texas, $4 billion because it's free. but there is nothing free. there's nothing free that comes from washington. for starters, it's our money. our money that we've tacked onto the national debt by borrowing from china were pulling it right up the printing presses. secondly, nothing stops washington from changing the rules down the road and in crease in the state share, which in the state of texas will be up to more than $18 billion over 10 years. that's a lot of money. that's a lot of money for the 14
9:39 pm
largest economy in the world. all we have is a promise. a promise from the federal government but apparently can't afford to keep dangerous criminals behind bars. if the merits of the expenditure don't matter anymore. i say they do. i say medicaid doesn't need to be expanded. it needs to be saved in the forms. we care about our poorest texans. we want them to have the best care possible and that cannot have been that the program on its way to bankruptcy. if you don't believe me medicaid is broken, just ask our president. four years ago he said and i quote, we can't simply put our people into a broken system that doesn't work, and quote.
9:40 pm
and yet that is exactly what he's doing or trying to do in the case of texas. no program has grown more rapidly the last 15 years at the state level that medicaid. washington's solution is to grow even after regardless of the fact that medicaid program is unsustainable. here is what we need. instead of the one size fits all medicaid expansion under obamacare, flexibility to innovate, to enact patient centered market-driven reforms, state accountability requirements, combined with limits on federal overreach. we need a medicaid program that emphasizes personal response ability with co-pays on a sliding scale. deductibles and premiums
9:41 pm
payments for emergency room care. small contributions that patients take ownership over utilization of care. we need to ensure kerry's fair for those who need it most. we need the ability to upper medicaid clients health savings accounts and they getting patients more control over health care spend name. [applause] nothing about the medicaid expansion should live citizens from existing private coverage in employer-sponsored coverage to the public roles. nothing she do that. if anything, medicaid dollars should be used to keep people on private insurance. the best way to help states provide health care is to allow states to design better, more efficient, more effect of care using medicaid dollars.
9:42 pm
this will allow each state to tailor the program to specifically serve the needs of unique challenges those states have. we know more about care more about the physical health and economic health than the federal government does. just a slight excess of flexibility to actually fix medicaid and create more cost efficient health care for our families, neighbors, health care providers. absent those changes and needed flexibility, the medicaid expansion amounts to one large incremental step towards single-payer socialized medicine. that's where were headed. i for one will not accept that as long as i am the governor of the state of this.
9:43 pm
[cheers and applause] there're some hispanic position is ideological. that's only true to the extent they been able to pay one's bills in the years ahead is ideological. they just charge it to our grandchildren's account. in texas, our cotexas, our consn requires a balanced budget. balanced budgets and spending burdens in the nations correspond when it comes to job creation. we are leading the way in all categories i'm on salary levels to the executive suite. the difference in texas comes back to the cracks of the issue. and mentioned earlier, i said we don't believe in growing government to grow the economy.
9:44 pm
we don't believe in a massive expansion of government as a source of economic stimulation. we believe in putting more money in the hands of entrepreneurs and family. we believe low-wage job shouldn't be let upon if they are stepping stone to a higher wage job. we believe that besser said revenue for public priorities job creation, not higher taxation. you know, if washington were serious about job creation, they wouldn't put $400 billion into so-called stimulus. it would reduce the red tape on federal lands and waters. the single fastest way to boost our economy and generate hundreds of thousands of dollars is to run reached the energy exploration across america.
9:45 pm
shall furnish and suffer the cheapest natural gas in the world and natural gas is clean. why would this administration the way on this continent only to make us more reliant in foreign lands. the administration is the guy again been blocking coastal exploration. it is imposed the other like-minded fetters agencies had but that means it's america is that the south america dictators. common sense tells us it is time to drill for american energy to create jobs and american prosperity. it is time to have a western hemispheric energies chatterji. my approach is pretty simple.
9:46 pm
make what american spy. that would americans make and sell it to the world. that's what we need to be doing in this country. [applause] let me close by sharing with you my take on conservatism in america. the popular media narrative is that this country has shifted away from conservative ideals as evidence of the last two presidential elections. that's what they say. that might be true for republicans had nominated conservative candidates in 2008 and 2012. my future. now we are told are pretty much just appeal to the growing hispanic demographic. let me say send in about what
9:47 pm
appeals to hispanics and state like texas. it is the enterprise agenda that allow small businesses to prosper free of government interference. if the policies to value the family unit is the best and closest form of government. the belief of life in the face of god. no one who risks life and limb to reach our shores comes here hoping for a government handout. they want opportunity. they want freedom and they want a better shot at providing for their family and that is true whether they are first-generation american unlike a lot of hispanics in texas, families living here a long time for davy crockett and james. sam houston made their way south. [cheers and applause] my friends commences but we as conservatives stand for. were not the people of equal outcomes, quotas of race-based
9:48 pm
appeals were cradle two the grave nanny state. we are the people who say ever and deserves a shot, the successes only the product of hard work and innovation. we are the ideology that is fine in color and solely grounded in the merit system. we are compassionate without being cynical. government can be a tool to self-improvement and self empowerment, not self entrapment. these ideals are as old as america humble blood flow long after we're gone because they are what make america unique. we will never been to the social and economic of western europe yet it's an interesting place to vacation, but a sorry example of government. who continue to pursue an
9:49 pm
american vision, personal responsibility and individuality. god bless you and through you, may god continue to bless this great nation we live in. caught at >> the simple fact is we are all getting older together in a fertility rates have dropped dramatically and were beginning to happen in 30. med that makes our challenges is to as a base to entitlements and social security even greater. slow-growing developing countries have had for decades lower fertility rates.
9:50 pm
japan and europe and russia and now china is starting to feel the impact of its one child policy. we are better off than the rest of the world a fertility rate has dropped to below breakeven for the lowest rate in three years in recorded history. unlike most of the world, we have a tried and true way to do with the demographic timebomb. democracy does not have to be destiny to change course. the path we could take is to allow for a strategic reform applies to the can bring that aspirational people will rebuild the demographic permit to make her entitlement system secured and jumpstart our economy in a way that will create an uplifting of hopes and dreams, that directly impact economic growth.
9:51 pm
>> supreme court justices and the kennedy and stephen breyer testified that the court's budget until members of congress automatic budget cuts
9:52 pm
>> supreme court justice anthony kennedy and stephen breyer told the house appropriations committee thursday that automatic budget cuts down the sequestration are unsustainable and would result in further scum into a child's and an increased risk to public safety. this is a little more than an hour and a half. >> the meeting will come to order. good morning to justice kennedy and justice breyer. we thank you for being here today. you both testified before this committee before and you're back. i always wondered how you decide who comes before the subcommittee, whether you volunteer for those someone volunteers for you. based on merit that sounds great. whatever the reason is, we are
9:53 pm
glad to hear and appreciate willingness and look forward to hearing from the court. this is one of those rare creations from these two branches of government to get together in the same room and talk. we'll know an independent judiciary that has respect for citizens and some important to our country. the fact you decide these controversial questions, obviously that is something our founding fathers was with import. while your budget is not as big as some of the other federal agent fees, you have one of the most roles to play and we appreciate that. outside of the confirmation process, this is one of the few times the branches of government get-together and interact in my opinion one of the most important things we do to recognize and respect each other. i think you all know the federal
9:54 pm
government is continuing to operate in an environment of scarce resources and so i went to thank you all for the efforts you've made to be more efficient, to contain costs as best you can. the overall budget request this year i understand this $86.8 million. $3 million over the current year level. i notice even limits at almost $2.2 million of savings and that's important. most of the increase ac in your budget is going to fund restoration activities in the buildings north and south of the side. we look forward to hearing your testimony and we look forward to sharing the resources you need to carry a constitutional responsibilities. we welcome any thoughts about the court system in general and we went to work to make sure the court has resources that needs.
9:55 pm
we appreciate your efforts to contain costs in these difficult times. before i asked for your testimony, and mcchesney ranking member for any comments he you might have. >> thank you so much an good morning. and the privilege of having you for the subcommittee as chairman of the committee and breaking the are. we didn't get to have you before us last year, so i didn't get to ask the question always on my mac which is other summoned born in puerto rico can serve as president of the united states. i realize that being a lawyer probably first has to get elected. i was trying to leave that issue. the question is out there if you wish in your testimony to render an opinion. i think it will be historic and i think i got one last time, but i'm not going to ask again. thank you, mr. chairman. i would also like to welcome you
9:56 pm
both back. this is one of the rare opportunities for branches to interact. because of this, our question raised beyond strict appropriations affect only the supreme court. as our nation's highest court, many of us luck to you for important side effect of the federal judiciary as a whole. that is certainly the case today, result the sequestration of the federal judiciary must implement project type that will affect all aspects of the system of justice. jimmy crenshaw and i received letters to the office of the u.s. court that details the impact of sequestration on the federal judiciary. to say the least, the impact is secure. minicourse will operate in many employees may be further laid off. i love criminals and others in the very things that help us prevent people coming back into
9:57 pm
prison. our core security will be lessened, even as federal courts continue to have significant security issues. i'm very worried about her part romance show no signs of abating at this point. a new reduction when deadly force for the difficult choices and undermined the ability of our federal public errors producer at mouse to help their clients. these many concerns we have and these are some of the questions will be asking today. we welcome you back end it is a unique situation. this is one of those hearings i always look forward to as you can see better camera, the whole world is watching, so i know it will be a good hearing. thank you, mr. chairman.
9:58 pm
>> i'd now like to recognize justice kennedy for your opening statement. if you could keep that within a five-minute solo time to question his certainly said that your copy for the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [inaudible] >> and screen. it's about? >> justice breyer joins me in bringing the chief justice on our colleagues. we have the best of statutory officers of our court. counselor to the president and marshall of the court. kevin kline has worked very closely with your committee and communication between your committee is extremely valuable.
9:59 pm
our public relations officer in kerry camp, a deputy clerk. is he both indicated, mr. chairman and congressman serrano, this is an interesting cost to to show dynamic here this morning. we talked of checks and balances him use those words interchangeably. separation of powers means it has powers of the town that it can exercise and must exercise without interference on the other branches. ..
10:00 pm
especially over the last few years, we have been extremely careful. as you indicated, mr. chairman, the budget for the entire third branch of the government is .2%. .2% of the federal budget. our budget is .002.
10:01 pm
percent. as indicated, we have additional money for grants and we are very proud that this is part of our budget and it is a 3% reduction over last year. looking at the reason for that reduction looks like that might be one time. we are committed to trying. because we think that the courts must set an example for the proper respect of the people of the united states and the way in which we spend our money. as you indicated, mr. chairman, the administrated amount is
10:02 pm
tremendous to the functioning of the entire judiciary. the supreme court that the public is interested in. on a routine basis, we are charged with ensuring that the justice system is efficient and fair and accessible. and the most our time is spent in reviewing cases that are decided in this country. number one, 17 of that budget is
10:03 pm
for the defense budget. and we have a huge budget, i'm talking about the supreme court -- a very substantial part is for a supervisory lease of those who are in the criminal system and for pretrial sentencing reports. this is absolutely urgent for the safety of society. the federal courts routinely, day in and day out supervise more people that are in the federal prison population. we supervise more than 200,000 criminal offenders.
10:04 pm
because of some automatic cuts, this has to be cut back. in my view, you are undercutting the ability of the separate branch of the government to perform its function. i am sure that every agency, mr. chairman, that comes before you, will give a special reason why. you'll have to go through this. but please consider that .2% of the federal budget for the entire third branch of the constitutional government is more than reasonable. what is at stake here is the efficiency of the courts and that the courts are part of the capital infrastructure, to make the government work. they are part of the social
10:05 pm
infrastructure. the rest of the world looks to the united states to see a judicial system that is fair and festival and it must have the necessary reporting resources for the congress of the united states. with respect to our duties and we hope that that will continue when we consider you next week. mcauley, waiting for the case on the puerto rican presidency,. >> you also have to be 35 years old. have you met that requirement?
10:06 pm
>> in his article to a section one. >> i could double that soon. [laughter] >> it may come out someday. >> thank you for your opinion. >> justice breyer, do you have any comments you'd like to make? >> mr. chairman, i agree with my colleagues. the question is could someone from puerto rico become president of the united states. i know many who could perhaps be elected. i will not say exactly who, but why will point out that it is
10:07 pm
partially in puerto rico, and an important part of this country is this. the second question is, why not? when i say that, i don't hear any answer. they are, i've entered the two questions. >> thank you, i just made it possible you are the front page of all newspapers. [laughter] >> thank you. >> maybe you could just run for president if nobody challenges that, it will be fine. if they do, and then these gentlemen will be happy to help you. >> it becomes an issue. if you recall the center, just to be sure, we have actually passed a resolution and i'm
10:08 pm
pretty sure that there is a great opinion. >> yes, my exploratory committee is coming together. >> the likely explanation of a natural born citizen, it was so that we would not invite european royalty to come and have this. >> that is the probable reason. >> we will get back to that issue. let me start out questions.
10:09 pm
we talked about the financial side and the one thing that you talked about, and the one thing that i would applaud that you all have done is tried to be very judicious in their fists in with the use of a taxpayer dollars. it is on everyone's mind because of the issue of sequestration which is kind of a washington word for across-the-board draconian type of cut that nobody probably thought was going to happen. it was set up to be a kind of deterrent to make sure that congress did its work to find additional savings.
10:10 pm
over the past couple of years, congress has actually reduced spending in 2010 until 2012. overall spending went down by a great deal since world war ii. a better way to make cuts to the budget is to do that specifically. that is why we sit here and we have listened to testimony and make choices and sometimes we add money and sometimes we take away money. regardless of how we feel about increasing or decreasing spending, and we find ourselves in that situation. you are part of that and i think the reductions are about 5% on the defense side, it's about 8%
10:11 pm
and the remaining seven months. so my question is, and i think you have answered it to a certain extent, you are already working as hard as you can to make sure that you are spending money efficiently. but i have to ask you since we have to sequester and it kicked in on march 1, can you see this from the supreme court, we will talk to some of the other administrative courts and their issues. and the supreme court, what kind of impact will that sequester have on you all? you have to save money somewhere. tell us how that will operate and number two, do you think the sequester -- maybe it is a month
10:12 pm
or year or 10 years, what will that do in terms of your overall making the transition more effective? >> we do not control our workload. >> we do not go looking for cases. in a typical year, we have many from and habeas corpus from the system. we have no choice or not.
10:13 pm
in describing how many civil cases are going to be allowed. you are saying that the courts are not open and the legal state is not accessible. and we can, our staff tells us, and for a few months we can get by with some temporary furloughs and over the long-term, it is unsustainable. >> in fiscal year 2012, it can
10:14 pm
be confusing. in 2012, we asked for a reduction of 2.8% in the budget. now we are requesting a 3.0% reduction. the way we have reduced this, is we have hired a few people. and they work that to share this with other agencies. so we are going to save money by getting rid of them. so what do i do, i tell my children, i say, how i spend my day? i spend my day, i read. i read briefs, i read them.
10:15 pm
then i have to say that that word processor. then i read and i write. i say if you do your homework really well, you will do a get a job you can have the rest of your life. then we have to keep the courtroom reasonably clean. if you didn't keep it clean, it's not just us again who would suffer. if someone comes into a courtroom and in that column, it has a hole in it. what do we think? what when we think about justice in the united states? but they do have to be kept up.
10:16 pm
it tells people to try to communicate with the public. what is going wrong. so we go through, we cut some travel, and we managed to cut 3%. i think that is pretty good, actually. so there we are, even if he said he wouldn't save any money. >> okay. i might just say that when we accept this and refit, the
10:17 pm
transcripts of the oral argument are put on our website at no charge. i refer to this and i ask about how many downloads were there last year for supreme court and opinions and transcripts of oral arguments. it is just under 70 million that is the education that we are performing. we have to have technical staff that can perform this. technology is working so fast.
10:18 pm
>> part of the work that we do, you talk to the public and try to explain to them and we tried to do and explain what the job is. they don't know and they don't understand. and you can do the same speech over and over again. and everybody knows that. many people hit that red flag. i say thank you, that can do so much more.
10:19 pm
>> would a sequester really be on this wavelength regardless of the sequester? it is very unusual for federal agency to come in and ask for less money. and i think you should be applauded for that. while we recognize that it will have a negative impact, we appreciate the fact that we are working every day to make sure that we are in technology or making an effort to be as efficient as possible. we thank you for that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. once again, thank you for being here.
10:20 pm
have you heard of the effects of sequestration as a whole? to have particular concerns about this and secondly, with concern about the budget cuts, at what point are we impacted by cutting our budgets so much. in general, can you tell us what you think about the program? >> the chairman of the budget committee has this and we need some detailed answers.
10:21 pm
>> the officers and probation officers and public defenders are also on the list. i am not sure that it could be if you cut public defender the court has to pay out a private attorney and that will be more we have -- my guess is 100,100,000 criminal prosecutors in the country. we have to have a functioning system to handle this. when i first became a judge, i
10:22 pm
thought, as natural law still affect our concepts and i've got a workload, and just as breyer mention this. the 12th biggest state in the nation, they have asked for years and they have a caseload of over 1500 cases per judge per year. for senior judges who are entitled to have only a one third workload and they take a
10:23 pm
full workload because of their sense of duty and commitment and obligation. we simply cannot take away the resources from these dedicated senior judges who work in order to show their dedication to the idea of the rule of law. the congress must reinforce that by giving the resources that they need. >> the courts need more funding. and there is a desire to cut. at what point does it jeopardize the ability of our system to provide the constitutional mandate and protection. and will that be just somebody's opinion or at what point did the
10:24 pm
judiciary make some strong comments to say we cannot continue to do it this way you are here on thin ice. >> at some point, we have public attention. but at some point we start having this come is as dangerous to the rule of law. the old rule, the states are undergoing even more cunning
10:25 pm
cuts and being contemplated by the federal government. the state of california, this was bigger than the entire judiciary. they are going to terminatepromising that this appears in court. i'm sorry, 10 courthouses. in order to pay for the things. there will be more cases. >> i understand difficult to your end. what i am doing is important. and it is. would this actually mean greater public expense?
10:26 pm
>> the way that i think about it is the exact cost. it does not help when serious crime is committed to punish a person who did not do this. i think everyone agrees with that. so is absolutely crucial to find out the person who did this. that is the person to be punished and that means you have a judge and part of it is if that person can get a lawyer who is capable of representing him, you will get the wrong people convicted and the person, if he is lucky that he had inadequate amount of counsel?
10:27 pm
including it would have cost again a decent lawyer in the first place. i would say the public defenders are below the level that would be minimum. there is a serious problem in terms of adding cost to the system. you cannot protect the defenders. but we like to make fun of the lawyers that every society has needed since the beginning of history. people who work and present a case fairly and honestly. >> thank you.
10:28 pm
>> worldwide, legislatures are somewhat reluctant to give funding to court. it looks like it is not that important. but when we go to other countries, a functionally legal system has a fair enforcement of contracts. it is part of the capital infrastructure. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. womack? >> thank you, mr. chairman. my thanks to the justices and i want to acknowledge long-standing service, having once it has been 32 years as a
10:29 pm
trial court assistant, still there today. i appreciate the work that they do up-and-down entire spectrum of our judicial system. i appreciated the two questions of the lawyers what and why and how much. occasionally, we are finding this to be the case these days, it is what if. so we are in that what-if scenario right now. i truly appreciate the fact you currently have first in order to have a effective judicial system. and i would like to drill down on a finer detail. and that was there is a modest
10:30 pm
increase request for some additional officers and i am curious if those additional resources and are they part of the what-if scenario in the sequestration, and what effect that would have on your court? >> we ask for half of the new officers that we thought we would need. it has worked out. one of the problems if you high or too few people and it's not cost-effective. that we have been able to curtail that. we will begin having additional questions which we must have soon. we can manage with what we have now. i think that for two or three months we can probably get by after that.
10:31 pm
>> that is called security. whether it's the white house or congress or the supreme court, and if you have your policeman come you have less security. security is something that costs nothing. but if you have your policeman, someone wandering into the building gets shot or someone gets hurt, or there is some kind of incident, then the question is at what risk are you prepared to take? the people who are paid to think about the recommended as we get 24 new officers. so could you survive with no police? i guess you could.
10:32 pm
they have to radically increased the risk as in this. is there any difference with a house officer or senate office building or a capital or are they considered to be under one publication umbrella? >> we have initial training for the standard police training. but we also have some officers who are experts in an assessment of institution specific. different institutions draw
10:33 pm
different threats. and we have different types of security breaches. so they have done marvelous work. there is some assessment that his institution specific. >> finally, some cases, they are somewhat out of sight and out of mind to the general public and other cases, others are very much part of the decision. you have to ramp up additional
10:34 pm
resources to accommodate the high-profile cases. is that a major impact on the court and the what-if scenario, would we risk creating vulnerability for our high-profile things? >> i think in so far as standard crowd control, we have, i think, over 100,000 people per year because we have a line where you can watch this. >> we almost always have a full courtroom. sometimes the line starts early in the morning or early in the evening. and there must be one or two
10:35 pm
extra officers there. the real risk is the threat assessment area. >> there is some extra costs in most cases. but i would not start there. most of the cases run high. people are unlikely to get it set. it means we did have a case sort of like this. the people don't care that much or get emotionally involved. there are large numbers of people trying to get in and so forth a sign that it is important to have crowd control and those kinds of cases.
10:36 pm
>> once again, let me reiterate my thanks to you. i have a whole list of a lot of really tough questions. but my colleague from kansas is going to ask most of those questions and i am confident that will allow him the opportunity. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the justices for their service. ten years, 26 in california as a attorney. highest conviction rate in the county. that is usually funnier in chicago. [laughter] one of the things that we talked about was communicating with the public and it is an issue that we struggle with at the state
10:37 pm
level. that is televising the proceedings. he gets to your point. one of you mentioned the public doesn't necessarily know how things work. clearly, the public's trust in almost all government institutions is at an all-time low. the way overused expression about this being the best disinfectant, sunshine, is that issue still possible to tell about the proceedings in the court? >> well, we take the position that we are a teaching institution. we teach by not having a
10:38 pm
television that tells us everything. you know, you could have oxford style debate if you are in college. and if you drew the slide that said you wanted cameras in the courtroom, you could make a number of very important points. number one, not everyone can see an oral argument. it is a great civics lesson. for an attorney to appear for the first time, it would be invaluable. so you could score a tremendous number of points by taking the affirmative position. it is not an unreasonable position. we feel that the institution
10:39 pm
works. in my own view, it would be considered reluctant to have a dynamic that one of my colleagues asked the question because of this. i just don't want that between me and my colleagues when we have only a half hour. we think that in our courtroom, it would be inconsistent with what we have. sometimes the system is broken and that is important. one of the things we are facing
10:40 pm
is facing critical financial problems and they are laying off court reporters. and those who also go into the press rooms. this is a real check. because you need an experienced reporter to know if that judge is experienced or not. so it made me that the cameras in courtrooms are more important. >> a lot of theatrics are from tv cameras or an attorney advertising.
10:41 pm
in all my life, i cannot imagine the supreme court acting in a way other than what they normally would where there are cameras there or not. but i respect your point. justice breyer? >> is quite a difficult question i get asked a lot. i like the equivalent of the oral argument, which is what you're talking about. my goodness, that was a difficult case. you see jefferson said one thing. hamilton and madison said another thing. if a million people could've seen that oral argument, i thought that was one of the best that could've been had. you would've seen him struggling with a hard issue.
10:42 pm
that would be wonderful. so that is the question. >> we are there as trustees. the last thing we want to do is making it worse as an institution. so what is the relevance of that? well, i worry that sometimes you will know better than me. what about jerry, what about witnesses, what about intimidation. you're the expert, i am not. this is not oral argument.
10:43 pm
it matters in a few cases. but that is not what this is about. i am trying to decide what will affect 200 million people who are not in that room. but when you look at something on television, as opposed to reading about it in the newspaper, human beings identify with other people. there are good and bad ones. but that is not what i'm here to do. what i think is the driving force is people who come to me
10:44 pm
and say, be careful. that you think it will affect you, you think it won't. and we have the press there every day. if i'm going to something with a lawyer, i might produce the most ridiculous example that i have thought of, i'm going to get an answer and i don't care if i look little bit stupid in the newspaper. i'd rather get the answer. so that is my method. but they say to me is that you think you won't change. the first time you see somebody taking a picture of you on prime time television -- in a way that you think is completely unfair and misses your point in order to caricature, what you're trying to do and where they think you're coming from -- the
10:45 pm
first time you see it, the next day we will watch a lot more carefully what we say. that is what worries me. so we say, okay, we are not ready yet. i want to see a little bit more but how this works. giving people the power to experiment and try to get studies not paid for by the press and how it affects public attitudes about the law. real objective studies. that is where i am at the moment. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i am going to yield back. but i would like the justices to contemplate something. when the movie mr. smith goes to washington was released, members of the u.s. senate didn't want to happen because it was thought that it made them look bad. at the same time, the representatives from the soviet
10:46 pm
union didn't want it shown there because they thought it made us look so good. there is a beauty and history of the supreme court and what takes place there. i think about what it would mean that generations to come through watch the arguments that took place in brown v. board of education. extraordinary moments that changed history and made our country a better place. watching at least 2% of part of that. i think it is very important. i think what you do is critical. thank you. >> i can remember the oral arguments -- that was probably 30 or 40 years ago.
10:47 pm
anyway, thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate noting the rule of law and how important it is to have a judiciary system and part of our role is to make sure that we can do the job effectively. in that regard you are not as a is a federal agency to ask for some programming dollars or a third branch of government. in your eyes, whichever it may be. we have a responsibility to make sure that the resources are there to ensure that the laws that we create here are held. thank you for that.
10:48 pm
it is always good to have a good jayhawk on your team. i would like to talk a little bit about the allocation of resources beyond the supreme court facing the bulk of these things and the challenges that we have come in making sure that they are properly funded we have particular chords that have too heavy of a caseload. we discussed this a few years ago. as we are looking at certain things that are going to affect
10:49 pm
how the judiciary handles the resources, are there fundamental changes you could make? and especially in regards to the amount of jurisdiction, less resources -- more resources come out of the decisions get made in terms of that and are there structural changes? are there things we could look at structurally that would make the judicial system more better. >> that is aicult question.
10:50 pm
i am tempted to pass it over to justice breyer. our judges are very good. one of the benefits of the federal judicial system is that we can take that as from all over the country and assign them. judges are very good about doing that. but part of the assignments don't quite solve the problem. i think sometimes you can look to see if laws are producing litigation. the whole question of court reform is something that has been done in the medical area. you can look at the substance of the laws that you pass. and look at the litigation impact that those laws would
10:51 pm
have. >> one thing that i would talk about is of interest to me, when i was the first judge in the circuit that i was in, there has always been a problem between gsa and the courts in the courts because the courts have to pay gsa rent. you see? the executive branch doesn't pay for court services. i mean, we provide -- the judiciary provides other services all the services that the executive branch wants for free. but why do the courts to the pay for the services the executive branches give to them? i'm certain someone can be done there and i'm certain that if you could separate those two things out -- i'm not certain, but i think that it might be in respect to having a rational allocation of the core budget.
10:52 pm
and i have a few other ideas. probably sometimes i have a good idea, and it is surrounded by 10 other bad ones. so i think i will stop. >> justice kennedy, that we can discern through some sort of analysis or report. how would we go about finding out where those pressure points are? >> one reason our civil case laws -- or our docket is down at
10:53 pm
this point is new statutes that congress passed that produces litigation. and there haven't been many major statutes, but the statute of health care is one. that took a long time. this includes dodd-frank and others who have not seemed to produce much, but those cases are working their way through the system. >> that is triggering some memories. it probably doesn't change very much. it is very pressing now compared
10:54 pm
to before. there used to be a williamsburg conference were members of congress and staff would be invited to discuss all kinds of interest. and people had all sorts of ideas with that. lee campbell, who is judging the first circuit, was on a commission headed the commission called the judiciary is something that was written probably 20 something years ago in the 80s. they were considering different ways of restructuring or other
10:55 pm
reforms as the judiciary continued to grow in a caseload. i think and that you will find a variety of interesting ideas. what you want to do is the input increases, you don't want to diminish the output. but you won't have a more efficient way of getting to the same output. >> the judiciary has found that if a judge in a civil case gets into the litigation early, at times mediation and so forth, that you can reduce the caseload and maybe come to a settlement that the party thinks is efficient. that is costly for the judge. it takes a lot of time for the judge. if the case is not settled, some effort has been wasted.
10:56 pm
it is a matter of this consideration, that it is not seen as the most fair or proficient way to resolve things. but that is in part because of the substantive laws that make it risky for major defendants go into the litigation system. many lawyers tell me that we will tell our clients that you have a very good case and we think you should prevail and you cannot take the risk. and there is something wrong with that. >> judge gibbons is going to talk about this next week.
10:57 pm
>> maybe i will try to read those documents between now and next week. thank you for that. i appreciate that and the ideas. and justice kennedy, the notion that big statutory changes create the opportunity for litigation, whether it is dodd-frank or health care and with that, i yield back. >> we are joined by the ranking member and we would like to welcome her and ask her she has any questions that you would like to post. >> i do, mr. chairman.
10:58 pm
i apologize and i just want to say that it is so exciting to have justice kennedy and justice breyer with us today. my husband has been practicing law for over 55 years. and he has never had the honor of asking the questions. but believe me, i'm going to tell him about this. i really appreciate your dedication to our country and the cord. just one question and comment. if the sequester were to continue, the federal judiciary would see a reduction, as you know, approximately $350 million. chief justice roberts said that
10:59 pm
it will inevitably result in the denial of justice. many are concerned about bankruptcy proceedings, civil cases would be delayed, but the u.s. attorneys will not have the resources to prosecute important cases. and that delays could infringe upon the right to a speedy trial. allowing the wrong people to walk free. a simple question. are you concerned that the sequester could infringe on the party's right? >> all of the risks a

Tonight From Washington
CSPAN March 14, 2013 8:00pm-11:00pm EDT

News/Business. News.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 29, America 26, Washington 18, United States 13, China 12, U.s. 11, Iran 10, Texas 9, Obama 9, Islam 8, Breyer 7, Afghanistan 7, Paul 6, Cairo 5, Europe 4, Iraq 4, Benghazi 3, Fbi 3, Obama Administration 3, Libya 3
Network CSPAN
Duration 03:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 17 (141 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 3/15/2013